The amount of money provided by the US Govt for USADA to do its job is not even a drop in the ocean compared to what is spent on sport in the USA. USADA receives not much more than ASADA does from the Australian govt.

Xplora wrote:And this might be completely true, but there is something DEEPLY wrong about shouting down an elected official who wants consideration of the situation where nonelected public officials have an enormous impact on the public sphere - especially when they have an evidence process (drug testing) that has uncovered nothing, just charging and convicting based on verbal testimony. Yes, that's important - but at face value, you couldn't bring the same kind of evidence to most other arenas. There needs to be a smoking gun... and when you can't prove there were any shots fired, except "I saw him fire the gun", that's a situation that deserves the attention of the US Senate/Congress.

Let's look at the alternative scenario. The USA clearly spends an ENORMOUS amount of money on sport, and has done so for decades. Surely the body that responsible for policing that should be held accountable for their actions, as public servants? Should politicians wilfully turn a blind eye to the incredible expense and probable waste of resources pursuing a dud case, when it is possible that other juicers are not being properly pursued? Or that all the funds spent on testing is being wasted, because they aren't using the evidence anyway? Do they have an appropriate process in place for these actions against sportsmen? (We are assuming that USADA has due diligence in place, and responsible decision makers running the place).

It ain't perfect... don't get me wrong. But politics is how Government is run... and lobbying happens from a number of areas. Can't hate on people wanting to have things looked at by their elected officials.

It ain't perfect... don't get me wrong. But politics is how Government is run... and lobbying happens from a number of areas. Can't hate on people wanting to have things looked at by their elected officials.

Sure, but your premise that the evidence based approach has revealed nothing is incorrect.

And often political pressure is designed to suppress evidence, not to reveal it. Which is why we have a separation of powers.

It ain't perfect... don't get me wrong. But politics is how Government is run... and lobbying happens from a number of areas. Can't hate on people wanting to have things looked at by their elected officials.

Sure, but your premise that the evidence based approach has revealed nothing is incorrect.

And often political pressure is designed to suppress evidence, not to reveal it. Which is why we have a separation of powers.

My premise is simply that USADA are applying a dramatically different standard to what most would consider expected and reasonable. The senator is saying "hey wait a second, you tested this guy dozens of times with no positive A and B samples, found nothing, now you are going to destroy an American legacy because you have an agenda?"

It's a far from perfect process, either LA, USADA or the US Senate, or UCI or USOC etc etc... the whole thing sucks badly... but to the lay observer, it just doesn't seem right... and yes, separation of powers is correct... except the USADA is NOT a law unto itself, they have rules and guidelines and public opinion definitely supports LA in some areas. He hasn't been hung out to dry like Ben Johnson.... a lot more people than just me don't feel "right" about it. The Senator is right to ask the question "are USADA looking at this correctly".

He might be wrong. USADA might be bang on the money. But it's nuts to imply that a democratically elected representative isn't properly placed to question a publically funded agency simply because you agree with the agency.

USADA will send Armstrong file to the UCI by the end of this month (Tygart interviewed in Le Equipe). Le Monde will tomorrow publish an interview with the French Sports Minister who calls for Armstrong's seven TDF victories to be revoked.

Xplora wrote:But it's nuts to imply that a democratically elected representative isn't properly placed to question a publically funded agency simply because you agree with the agency.

I would turn around your statement "simply because you agree with the agency" to "simply because they disagree with the agency." That is not a valid use of their power. There should be merit in their reasons.

No organisation likes to be have the heat applied even if they have little to be guilty of. And it distracts an organisation from doing it's job.

Police have rights to investigate me for suspected criminal activity. But to use those powers only out of spite because, for example, I exposed corrupt practices is a whole different matter. Their rights and obligatios do not extend there.

These representatives are threatening to apply heat because of the decision against Armstrong. That heat should have been applied already to their processes and finances if they were an issue. It is now an issue seemingly only because of Armstrong. By seeking it now they applying intimidation and reeks to me of spite, not of concern with other issues of governance, finance and process.

They have not mentioned the Armstrong case but if anyone thinks this just happened in the fullness of time and is unrelated then they are off with the fairies. One senator did flag it before the decision, though I would need some convincing that it is not about Armstrong. He did this a month after USADA had given Armstrong notice of the action but before Armstrong had been sanctioned (he was still in court denying USADAs right to investigate).

Here is an interesting spin on the Armstrong affair and the senator's sudden interest in fairness. It is too long to post but it is worth a look at anyway as it cleverly parallels Armstrongs issues with another that gets no attention. It also tackles the claims that USADA does not have any juridiction over Armstrog because he only signed up to UCI, nt to USADA. And finds the claim lacking.

Without even reading it I don't see how that is possible... Lance would have had USA International license, then he automatically falls under the anti doping agency of that country... first prosecutions are always done by the National body, if the UCI, WADA etc don't agree then they can appeal like with the dodgy steak.

To be clear, the claim that is lacking merit wa Armstrongs, that the USADA did not have jurisdiction. The article discusses that and decides that Armstrongs argument is without merit. USADA does have merit.

Have a read anyway. I think that you will find it a fresh way of arguing some of the same tired not-so-old arguments.

I'm a bit dissatisfied with the unattributed leaks to venerable newspapers, do you think Joe Public will get a better look at the dossier against Lance once it's sent to UCI later this week? I do think he did it I just want public confirmation and sanctions ASAP. I read his book but have never been a fan and always disliked his apparent egotism and hubris.

USADA releases 202-page reasoned decision on Armstrong (the detailed evidence goes to over 1,000 pages). It includes sworn testimony from 26 people, including 15 riders (11 former teamates of Armstrong, such as George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Jonathon Vaughters who have confessed to doping and never failed a test, so that destroys the Armstrong retort about never testing positive implying he never doped). I like how Tygart in the report says USPS received ten of millions of dollars from taxpayers while running a doping conspiracy (take that Armstrong with your pathetic claims about USADA embarking on a taxpayer funded witch hunt).

As others have suggested before, the "I'm over it, I am gonna get on with my life now and ignore it all" has immediately elicited a response from his laywer (read "mouthpiece in this era of where lawyers so often take on the role for high profile clients).

And I also note that the "500" tests that many have queired and that no-one has been able to justify is now "500 to 600".

The mouthpiece has labelled it a "one sided hatchet job". Well, we have been waiting for the other side to be put. Do your job mouthpiece, have your client step into the lion's den and give the other side of the story. It's not USADA that is stopping an alternate story from being told.

The fact that Armstrong's crew have decided not to contest the evidence - thus, avoiding all the scrutiny of an open and transparent hearing process says quite a lot.

Given the blind support of Armstrong throughout the world - which is evident in some posts within this thread (not being critical, simply pointing out that his history elicits substantial emotions amongst cyclists, cancer sufferers / families and the wider community) - the USADA would be drawing an incredibly long bow to so publicly condemn Armstrong (an American hero until now) - unless their case has plenty of merit.

Eyewitness testimony under oath is more than satisfactory and from all accounts, there are a multitude of persons citing the same diabolical story......in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of course it will be regarded as case proven.

macca33 wrote:The fact that Armstrong's crew have decided not to contest the evidence - thus, avoiding all the scrutiny of an open and transparent hearing process says quite a lot.

I think it's an admission that the damage is done. Lance could have taken the stand and sworn by his remaining left nut that every statement made was untrue, and perhaps had some evidence to back that up, and the damage would have been done. Courts and evidence are wonderful things, especially from discredited sources. A dingo apparently did a baby and it took 30 years to finally accept that story. It's an embarrassment to elite sport in general that it has come to this - if testing can be beaten, then you shouldn't ban something - because if you can't find a smoking gun or a bullet or a wound, then there is no crime to answer for - even when there is an incredibly strong suspicion that someone was shot.

norbs wrote:What I would find hilarious is if they go after him for perjury and he gets done. Would live to see the Yellow Army try and rationalise that.

the yellow army could be in for a few nasty surprises.

i say this because to think that someone is capable of telling so many lies to so many thousands of people over such a long time with the straightest face and without a hint of remorse or regret is staggering.

but do you think this same type of person would really limit their deception to only sport?

or would this type, style and magnitude of deception be present in other parts of their life?

ie: if lance is prepared to run a sophisticated scam to lie/cheat/steal tour de france victories, maybe he's happy to lie/cheat/steal from his charity too?

Statement Regarding USADA Report and My Time at US Postal Service TeamI am aware my name has been mentioned during talks that USADA has had with former team mates of mine in their investigation regarding doping activities at the US Postal Service team. I am sad to say that I was part of a team where doping formed part of the team's strategy, and I too was involved in that strategy. My involvement is something I am not proud of and I sincerely apologise to my fans, media, family and friends who trusted me and also to other athletes in my era that consciously chose not to dope.

I stopped my racing career because I had the opportunity to be part of something that had the potential to actually change cycling. The ideas about a clean team that Dave Millar and Jonathan Vaughters spoke to me about back then, were ones that the sport desperately needed. History has shown that these ideas when fully implemented had a lasting affect on our sport. With key elements like " blood profiling" which then was later taken on board as the "Athlete Biological Passport" and the "No-Needles-Policy" which was also adopted by the UCI and WADA, a radical change for the better started to dominate the minds of a lot of athletes. These are legacies that were pioneered at Slipstream and they have had a real and lasting impact on cycling.

In my roles with Slipstream Sports, Cycling Australia and now at ORICA-GreenEDGE, I have always acted within the ethos of clean sport and I am very proud to have worked with the new generation of clean superstars.

A lot has changed for the better, cycling is totally different now, and I have seen these changes as an athlete and also in management with my own eyes in the last decade.

As a sport, cycling has received a lot of criticism regarding doping and rightfully so - but certain teams have also lead the way in fighting an otherwise never ending battle to ensure that professional cycling can stay clean. This battle starts from within and we have had great success in changing this in the current culture in our sport. I am convinced that this battle will need constant monitoring and we must learn constructively from the past. The approach that many riders of my generation had cannot be repeated, and I believe that cycling now has the most rigorous and complete testing regimes of any sport.

I am sorry for the people I have let down because of the personal choice I made at that time, but I have endeavoured to educate and guide the current stars and to ensure that future generations never have to deal with the pressures that existed in the past. But I am very confident that our sport is going the right direction and I believe cycling has a bright future.

Given my admissions above, I have been in contact with my employees and will be voluntarily standing down from my positions with the National Men's High Performance Program with Cycling Australia and as a Sports Director with GreenEDGE Cycling while inquiries into my case are conducted and the Board of Cycling Australia and GreenEDGE make a determination regarding my future with each organisation. I will be refraining from making any further comments until this process has run its due course.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.